Gillison v. Lead Express, Inc.

2 Citing cases

  1. Gratz v. Gratz

    Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-645 (E.D. Va. Apr. 15, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    Federal courts exercise personal jurisdiction to the extent allowed under state law for the state in which they sit. See New Wellington Fin. Corp. v. Flagship Resort Dev. Corp, 416 F.3d 290, 294 (4th Cir. 2005); Gillison v. Lead Express, Inc., No.3:16cv41, 2018 WL 6537151, *5 (E.D. Va. Dec. 12, 2018). Personal jurisdiction must comport with both state law and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

  2. Edwards v. Schwartz

    378 F. Supp. 3d 468 (W.D. Va. 2019)   Cited 38 times
    Granting motion to dismiss in a case involving a scientific debate over water contamination in Flint, Michigan

    His contention that the defendants, "both individually and acting as conspirators in concert and together ... participated in ... electronically communicating and/or mailing a damaging defamatory and tortious letter and email" to Virginia Tech is factually unsupported. See Gillison v. Lead Express. Inc., No. 3:16CV41, 2018 WL 6537151, at *4 (E.D. Va. Dec. 12, 2018) (citing Machulsky v. HaIl, 210 F.Supp.2d 531, 537 (D.N.J. 2002) for the proposition that "[a]t no point may a plaintiff rely on the bare pleadings alone in order to withstand a defendant's ... motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction" (citation omitted) ). Indeed, Edwards concedes that the Letter only "may have ... been saved on and distributed from other defendants' computers."